sf says...

"OMG, our beloved Emperor is gone! (sorta') But don't worry: the Democrats are fanning the flames of crazy, so it's just a matter of time before they run things again."

Sunday, July 31

Her private email server--who cares, right?

The conservative blogosphere is now debating a) whether the Russians and Chinese already have all the emails that were on her server, having hacked Hillary's unsecured, unencrypted system as soon as they discovered its existence; b) whether any of those the emails contained TOP SECRET information, the loss of which has damaged our national security; and c) if these emails were released, whether it would cost Hillary votes.

I'll bet the first two are certain. But I'm fairly certain neither Russia nor China will release any emails. Reason is that both those adversaries would far, far rather have a thoroughly corrupt socialist as president of the U.S. than the admittedly volatile, unpredictable Trump. Why would they want to help the more formidable candidate win?

I'm also pretty sure nothing about Hillary's emails will cost her a single vote, because the media and Comey have done their job of making the whole email topic a non-issue.

Two days ago Trump gave a press conference in which he jokingly said he hoped Russia could "find" (note that word) Hillary's missing 33,000 emails and release 'em to the American public.

Naturally every single member of the lying mainstream media was outraged, and reported the story as some variation of "Today Trump asked Russia to *hack Hillary's server* and reveal the emails." Of course this wasn't at all what he said, but nevertheless the lie was instantly echoed by every single leftist outfit.

This probably strikes most of you as "much ado about nothing." It's not. Instead it's a classic example of the media deliberately mis-reporting everything they can to damage Republicans and help the Democrats. Once you know about how this works you'll be able to see it far more easily than you do now.

To do that you need to know more about what's happened to Hillary's private, unencrypted email server--the one she used to send and receive TOP SECRET emails. Of course these were easily copied by hackers since the server wasn't encrypted, and was set up in a way that would make it easily hackable.

In case you've been too busy making a living and raising your kids to give the story much attention, Hillary's people erased ("wiped") the drives of her private, email server many months ago. Her attorneys didn't just hit "delete" but carefully, totally erased all data on the drives "beyond hope of forensic recovery," as the FBI director drily put it. So even if the server was still running, it no longer holds any data--something every media figure knew or should have known.

Moreover, months ago the FBI removed the server from Hillary's closet--carefully waiting until after her people had erased all the data it held, of course. Since then it hasn't been connected to the internet or anything else. So even if it still held data--which, again, it doesn't--it couldn't be hacked.

Again, every self-described "smart" member of the mainstream media either knew or should have known this. So why would they falsely report that Trump had "asked the Russians to hack into Hillary's server," eh? The answer is obvious.

Oh, you can be sure the server has been hacked--by both the Russians and Chinese--but that happened over a year ago, before the FBI seized it. FBI director Comey confirmed that experts found evidence of what he described as "hacking *attempts*," but said it wasn't possible to determine whether any of those attempts had succeeded.

Independent computer experts claim skilled hackers can hack a system without leaving any evidence.

Speechless

How utterly dumb are some judges? Consider the following story:

Khalid Fathey, a 49-year-old Iraqi in Washington state, was charged with raping a grade-school girl. Despite the seriousness of the crime he was charged with, he was free on personal recognizance. Didn't even have to post a bail bond. The judge didn't confiscate his passport.

Two days before his trial date he fled the U.S, flying to the United Arab Emirates.

Fathey claims nothing happened and that the claim that he raped the girl was fabricated by the girl’s family.

Now why in the world would a judge leave the door open for a foreign national charged with a serious crime to flee the U.S. to avoid trial on that charge? Oh wait, letting foreigners charged with crimes walk away without penalty is standard procedure for the emperor's regime. So maybe this judge was just angling for an appointment to the federal bench.

Wanna see how Hillary's campaign delivers their orders to the Lying Media? Take a look:

Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, argued on Sunday that the emails she deleted are “not a relevant discussion” anymore.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd asked Mook if the Clinton campaign would encourage the release of the 33,000 emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her time as secretary of state.

“This is settled, over now,” Mook replied. “Secretary Clinton went in and testified...in front of a Congressional committee. They asked her a lot of questions about this. They came up with nothing. The FBI has concluded their look at this issue and so we’re moving on.

The emails she deleted are "not a relevant discussion" anymore. That wasn't a suggestion, that was an order.

Ever heard of a "document dump"? Well last Friday there was a big one

If you're "young" or a Democrat/liberal, or a righteous person who's too busy making a living and raising your kids to spend time studying political tricks you probably haven't.

It's when a government agency knows it must release documents or news damaging to the ruling party--because if it doesn't, its opponents will. In that case it always releases the docs or news at 5pm on a Friday.

They do that because 5pm is too late to make Friday's newscasts. They pick Friday because TV execs know that far fewer people watch "news" over the weekend--and by Monday some other story will likely crowd their damaging news out of the news cycle. If not, Democrat-supporting liberal editors--which they all are--can be counted on to claim the doc-dump on Friday--three whole days ago!-- is "old news" and thus no sense in putting it on the air.

Now that you know what it is, one happened this past Friday. It was a blockbuster, but you wouldn't know it from the Lying Media. Let me explain.

Over two years ago a private organization asked the State Department for copies of emails sent and received by the Secretary of Skate that weren't protected by secrecy laws.

State totally ignored 'em. After all, laws don't apply to the government.

Well...this group didn't buy that last notion, so after State ignored their polite legal request--and clearly irritated by the brazen lying and stonewalling from the emperor's minions and the former Secretary of Skate--they sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act. They claimed the government was refusing to release documents that the Act didn't permit them to withhold. This is what led to Hillary's attorneys erasing her private email server "beyond hope of forensic recovery," in the carefully chosen words of the FBI director.

Now we'll need to review just a bit of the chronology of the Hillary email story to understand what's happened: When she was SecState but staying at her palatial New York estate on weekends, she didn't want to be "out of the loop" on events. So she told her top aides at State to send her copies of any important stuff. This "important" stuff was often in secret or even TOP SECRET "cables" from our embassies in foreign capitals.

These secret, sensitive cables were sent and received on a highly-encrypted, isolated, hopefully totally secure computer system. To keep it secure, its terminals were only in highly secure, electronically sealed rooms at State. This system had no connections at all to the regular internet. So if something important happened when the Secretary of Skate was in New York, how could her top aides forward the explanatory TOP SECRET cables to her?

No problem: Her aides simply printed out the cables in the secure State Dept facility, cut off the SECRET or TOP SECRET stamps on the top of each page, then scanned 'em and emailed 'em to Hillary's private, unsecure email server in her New York home.

The huge question--which has either never been asked or the answer hasn't been released to the public--is: Did Hillary order her top, trusted aides to do this, or did they come up with this illegal workaround by themselves?

Surely--surely--there had to have been at least one uncorrupt person in the FBI investigating team who thought to ask that. So what's the answer?

Of course after the election no one will be allowed to ask.

The events above are why Hillary had her attorneys erase her email server "beyond hope of forensic recovery." Despite the strong possibility that Hillary had sent and received TOP SECRET emails on her server, the FBI had deliberately not seized that server (Obama wouldn't approve it). Interesting. But they could only postpone that act for so long without smart voters realizing the fix was in.

Guessing that it was only a matter of time before the FBI would be forced to seize the server, Hillary and her co-conspirators devised a brilliant scheme: because the server also contained personal emails, they'd demand that the FBI had no right to see those--something voters would sympathize with. So as a compromise she had her attorneys determine which of her tens of thousands of emails were "work-related," and said she'd turn those over to the State Department.

They would then erase every email they didn't turn over, claiming the erased ones were personal. And erase they did--"beyond hope of forensic recovery." Which obviously cut off any possibility of finding what was actually on the server.

But wait: If Hillary sent emails back to her aides instructing them who should be ordered to do what, and if those aides forwarded those orders down the chain to worker bees at State, the forwarded e-mails might still be on the laptops of those worker bees. It wouldn't have occurred to the top aides--Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills--to instruct the worker bees to delete those emails because they had come *from* Hillary, and thus weren't marked classified--even though many were based on the contents of TOP SECRET cables.

So the FBI started looking at the *recipients* of Hillary's emails at State.

Guess what: They found a bunch.

And you'll undoubtedly be shocked to learn that this discovery led Hillary's attorneys to suddenly "discover" another 22,000 emails that were indeed "work-related"--and thus should have been turned over to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but hadn't been.

Stay with me cuz we're almost there. You wouldn't have understood the significance of what comes next without all that background. And admittedly this is all *way* too intricate for low-information voters to follow--which is why the lying media has tried to make this a story about persecution of poor, innocent, defenseless Hillary by eeeevil Rethuglicans.

The FBI has delivered 'thousands' of documents to the State Department that it recovered during its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server. A court filing [by the FBI] said that the FBI plans to turn over more emails [to the State Department] on Aug. 5.

The State Department will then again sort through the documents, determining which should be considered 'agency records.' State then plans to release these "on a rolling basis."

(The source for the above is the Democrat-supporting website "The Hill," so this amounts to an admission against interest for Dems.)

State Department spokeswhore John Kirby then made a totally self-serving statement--which The Hill dutifully published--designed to make the rubes believe everything was totally legal and normal. Here it is:

Just as we appropriately processed the material turned over by former Secretary Clinton, we will appropriately and with due diligence process any additional material we receive from the FBI to identify work-related agency records and make them available to the public consistent with our legal obligations.

State wants voters to believe that they haven't done anything to try to delay the release of evidence that might possibly hurt Hillary's chances of being president. According to these lying liberal scum they've done everything just perfectly. There isn't a shred of malfeasance by State--so you peasants shouldn't go looking for any.

Horse shit. Government employees a the State Department have *constantly* stonewalled the joke of an investigation to protect the Democrat candidate.

So now that the FBI has announced that it's found "tens of thousands" of emails from Hillary's private server, instead of releasing their findings to the plaintiffs in the FOIA lawsuit, the FBI says it "plans" to turn the emails *back over* to the corrupt Hillary-supporting scum at State! State says when that happens they'll start the long, laborious process (bullshit) of determining which of these are "work-related" and will then start the long process of releasing these "on a rolling basis."

That's code for "after the election."

But wait--didn't Hillary's attorneys delete ALL her personal emails? Well that's certainly what they claimed. Which would suggest that ALL the newly-discovered stuff is "work-related." And damning as hell to Hillary. So of course they can't have any of that being released before the election.

Solution is obvious: They'll "run out the clock," arranging a series of delays so that nothing serious is released before the election. Oh, there'll be more 'inside baseball' revelations about the DNC coordinating with Hillary's campaign, but no one understands that stuff anyway. Or cares.

And of course after she's elected you won't hear another word. No more "investigation."

Nice.

So that's what a "doc dump" is, and what it means. Now that you know, you'll be more likely to recognize it when you see it again...and again. And keep in mind that this is from a group that claimed to be "the most transparent administration in history." Or some such total bullshit.

How much lower can America sink into lawlessness? You're about to find out.

Nothing will actually be said, of course. Instead you'll hear or see odd things happen here and there. Hard to hide court filings, or a friend or relative audited by the IRS. But you won't see a pattern, because you'll only know about the one or two events very close to you. The Lying Media won't say a word, because the events would damage Democrats.

Rumors will fly about various kinds of blatant, astonishing corruption--like a government agency (say, the Department of Energy) giving a billion dollars (not "million" but billion, with a B) to a company founded and owned by a buddy of the president, just before the company goes belly-up.

Gosh, where do you think all that money could have gone? Ah, million-dollar bonuses for the execs. Got it. But no one will be arrested and nothing damning will be written about it. The story will quickly vanish, just like the money. Guess there must not have been anything to the rumors, eh?

And two years later not one voter in 100 will remember a thing about the story.

Can't happen here, you say? Wake up: it already has. But if you're in college now, it happened when you were about 13, so it's no wonder you didn't pick up on it. Your emperor pressured a squirrely little fuckstick at the Dept of Energy to do it. Do a search for "Solyndra." Or Abound Solar, or Bright Automotive, or Beacon Power, or Ener1, or "A123." Corrupt Democrats from top to bottom.

Witnesses to corruption will mysteriously recant or disappear. Records will vanish. (In South Africa for the last 15 years, murderers identified by dozens of eyewitnesses have been freed without a trial because the whole case file disappeared from police custody. Amazing.)

People who speak out against the corruption will have their tax returns audited by the IRS, or the EPA will sue them for building a pond on their own property, on the grounds that this violates some bullshit EPA rule.

Can't have people actually thinking they actually own any rain that falls on their property, eh citizen? I mean, that's absurd. Wait--that's happened too.

Don't feel bad if you don't know about any of this stuff. Most people get all their information from the Lying Media--so if the media doesn't say anything about some event, how the hell are you supposed to know about it?

But now that you know--at least a tiny bit of it--what can you do?

A close friend told me there are 4 reasons why almost no Americans even bother looking into this stuff--and in fact many get angry when someone asks 'em to do so:
1. They believe "It's always been this way; nothing new here;"
2. They believe both parties are equally corrupt, in which case it doesn't matter who wins;
3. "No one can do anything about it anyway--at least not by voting. And no one wants to pick up a gun because you'll get killed;"
4. "No one has any time to spare--everyone is spending every minute they have trying to make ends meet, and/or trying to raise their kids (or sometimes their grandchildren after they've been given up by worthless gen-Xers); only a tiny fraction of the people have time to devote to politics--and they can't change anything because of #2 and 3 above."

If you like the idea of the America you grew up in, you need to shake off those excuses. On the other hand, if you hated the environment you grew up in and want to destroy it and change this country into a third-world, socialist shit-hole, vote Democrat.

Lord I confess that I hate the corrupt, lawless, lying, anti-American rat-bastards who have taken over this once-great country. It would probably be uncharitable of me to say that I hope they all burn in hell. So I'll try to avoid saying that.

Wednesday, July 27

We have a new paradigm, courtesy of Hillary and the Democrat party

deliberately importing tens of thousands of Syrians without being able to vet one; and

the mass release into the U.S. of illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes *other than* entering the U.S. illegally.

Thus it would seem there's not the slightest stigma or downside for Democrats to commit or endorse illegal acts--provided such acts are done by their party, its supporters or their presidential candidate.

It's as if laws that would jail ordinary folk didn't apply to them. And the scary thing is that half the country is fine with this.

Eh, why worry? As Hillary said, "At this point, what difference could it possibly make?"

Tuesday, July 26

If someone is bent on wiping out your civilization, are you morally obligated to let 'em?

Is killing ever justifiable?

For example, suppose you knew with total certainty that someone you knew was planning to [detonate a nuclear weapon/poison the water supply/commit mass murder]. You tell the cops but they don't believe you. Your only chance to stop the person is to kill them before they can act. Is it wrong to kill the person?

I note this to raise a totally academic question: If some group was totally dedicated to destroying your civilization, and won't stop as long as they're alive, are you morally obligated to let them do so?

Specifically, over the last year there have been a slew of deadly attacks by Muslims on unarmed western civilians. A dozen here, 154 there and so on. Muslims claim their religion is never responsible, that it does NOT order devout Muslims to kill infidels.

This of course is bullshit: The Koran commands devout Muslims to kill "infidels." In case you just arrived on the planet, that would be you (assuming you're not Muzz).

As far as can be determined no Muslim authority has ever said "Oh, that verse of the Koran that says 'kill infidels' doesn't mean what it says." Because of course any muzz who said that would be killed by his co-"religionists," since disagreeing with anything written in the Koran is apostasy, which devout Muslims believe warrants execution.

So if we assume the Koran means what it clearly says, it poses a problem: Are you ready to let them kill you in order to let them do what their "religion" demands?

Liberals and Democrats--who think of themselves as far more enlightened than you--refuse to answer this question, simply rejecting the premise: Unable to see consequences that will happen more than a minute or two in the future, they simply repeat the mantra "Islam is 'the' religion of peace, so it's simply illogical that Muslims would want to kill us. It's simply un-possible."

To liberals and Democrats, no more analysis or discussion is needed. They believe Islam is peaceful because the alternative is scary, and because all their enlightened friends believe it. And that's all they need.

By contrast, people who observe and reason for themselves see Muslims killing anyone, anywhere who isn't a member of their own sub-set of the cult and ask what drives those murders. Hmmm, that's a real poser.

Regardless of the answer to that question, the next question can already be asked: "When will they decide they've killed enough 'infidels'?"

Most rational people decide the answer to that one is "never."

This poses the classic "existential problem": Let's assume you want to continue to live, without converting to Islam. By contrast, they're bent on doing what their religion commands them to do. In the long run it's not possible for both of these outcomes to exist simultaneously.

Now, it could be that the Koranic verse noted above has been countermanded by some later verse. If so the counter has been very well hidden. I'd be glad to hear it, but if such a verse existed you'd think so-called "moderate" muzz would have been eagerly pointing it out to us infidels. They haven't, which should lead you to the logical conclusion that no such verse exists.

Okay, Theory Y: There's no countermanding *verse* as such, but later parts of the Koran *strongly suggest* that followers are really not supposed to kill infidels.

And as you already guessed, if such a passage exists it's been amazingly well hidden for 1300 years.

Now: If liberals and Democrats want to submit to Islam--whether by paying the "jizya" (a special tax non-Muslims are to pay to Muzz leaders to not be killed) or by converting to Islam--is that their right? Of course. I'd be delighted to see Hillary Clinton in a burqa, setting an example for Democrat women.

The point is that Dems, liberals and "progressives" either don't know what the Koran says, or don't believe Islam means what it says, or are fine with converting or paying the dhimmi tax. You need to know this.

Even if they knew the Koran demanded that they choose between submitting or converting to Islam, they'd still support welcoming more muslim "refugees" into the U.S., and changing our laws to accommodate them. Because in their view that's the only "enlightened" thing to do. It's what Obama and Hillary strongly and openly advocate, so it must be enlightened.

And for libs, Dems and progs, being seen by their peers as enlightened is the highest honor. Most would rather die than be thought of as unenlightened. (If you don't believe that ask any lib you know if they regard Islam as a threat, in any way, shape or form.)

Your betters explain all those tragic events to you poor, unenlightened souls

Mainstream media: "Today a crazy person, for reasons we can't possibly determine, has *allegedly* committed a "man-made disaster" after he was pushed beyond the breaking point by white privilege. And Islamophobia. But whatever the reason, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

The emperor: "Global warming was undoubtedly a big factor. Or maybe climate change. So I'm ordering that $20 billion be reallocated from wasteful military spending to fighting global...what's the current term again?"
"In any case, this unfortunate event had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

Hillary: "White Germans need to look in the mirror and do some soul-searching. And in any case, this unfortunate event had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

Message to "lone-wolf" killers from the Democrats and mainstream media

The Republican presidential candidate has claimed you're killing people because your religion tells you to. We're sure this can't possibly be true because we've determined that all religions are 'morally equivalent,' which is to say, stuff no sophisticate could possibly believe. In any case, we'd like to know your real reason for killing unarmed civilians.

Since we have absolutely no idea what that could be, we'd like to request that before you, uh, 'pull the trigger' next time, you declare the motive for your attack, in writing, in triplicate. Please sign and have it notarized.

French government ordered mayor of Nice to erase all video of truck attack on 6 named cameras

"Le Figaro" is a French weekly newspaper founded in 1826. Has a circulation of 313,000. So it's got a lot of reputation on the line.

Four days ago Le Figaro published an article claiming that the central government of France--under socialist Hollande--ordered the city of Nice to destroy the video surveillance tapes from six municipal security cameras for the 24 hours before the deadly terrorist attack, "and also all the images after the attack started."

The order listed the specific cameras that Hollande's government wanted erased, by both location and camera number. Makes ya wonder how they knew exactly which cameras, by number, eh? [1]

A police supervisor in Nice said "It's the first time we've ever been ordered to destroy evidence." (The guy said it in French, of course, but that's an accurate translation.)

If you're a liberal/Democrat you probably don't believe this story, because it doesn't *seem* to make any sense: If you're trying to determine whether the truck attacker was part of a larger plot you'd want as many sets of trained eyes on these videos as possible. It's not unusual for some detective examining photos from a "cold case" to see something *and grasp its significance* after dozens of other officers didn't notice anything unusual.

The *stated* reason given by central government for ordering the destruction of the video record was to avoid "uncontrolled dissemination" of the vids. The government said the problem with that was that ISIS could use them for propaganda purposes. Except there are already 20 cell-phone vids already on the internet--and unlike the surveillance cams, they're pointed at the truck instead of at a random street corner. So this stated reason, while *plausible*, isn't the real one.

The second objection the Paris government noted to dissemination of the vids was that if victims' families saw them, they'd be distressed. Again, plausible. But again, 20 better vids are already on the net. So the potential for distress--other than actually, y'know, having a loved one killed--is already there. Families wanting to avoid more pains know not to view 'em.

So what's the *real* reason? It's to avoid identifying the official in the Hollande government who initially put out the false but de-fusing initial fable that the attack was a) the work of a single crazy guy, totally spontaneous, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam; or alternatively b) the work of a "lone wolf" who was absolutely acting alone, not on behalf of Islamic terrorists.

This official is the mole--well, one of probably dozens, but you get the picture. While his nominal job is improving security of French citizens, his real goal is to keep those very people--the people he nominally "serves"--from connecting this attack with Islam--in any way, shape or form.

BTW, for the moment the mayor of Nice has refused to destroy the evidence. But I predict this refusal is only temporary: national governments have virtually unlimited money with which to convince local officials to do as the central government orders. "Want that new highway interchange you need so badly? Do as we ask. Otherwise, sorry."

The conclusion:A decade or so ago a former military guy explained that when a serious problem arose, the fastest way to solve it involved 4 steps: Observe: Find out everything about what's happening; Orient: How do the things you've observed fit into the picture of what's happening? Decide what action will solve the problem; Act.

This was shortened to "OODA."

Here's something you need to put at the top of your "Observe" checklist: The mainstream U.S. media--which is totally, completely Democrat-supporting--will *never* tell you the truth about anything that negatively affects the Dem/liberal/"progressive" agenda.

Never.

If you're a Democrat or liberal or young you think this can't be true. And the fact that you're wrong about this isn't because you're stupid, but because you simply cannot, *cannot* believe the wunnerful media would LIE to you. They're so...enlightened. So seemingly sincere.

Bull. Shit.

They'll do anything--anything--to support the "progressive" agenda, truth be damned.

So...watch for the bombshell story at the top--socialist government demanding that Nice erase all the vids--to appear in the U.S. media. Guess how many papers will run it. It'll be on the Agence France Presse wire service, so every major U.S. media organ will know about it, but....

Okay, the Pocono Valley Observer--circulation 1200--might pick it up.

I rest my case.

So, did any of you sleuths spot the *hidden* bombshell in the government's demand that the vids be destroyed--the proof that their *stated* reasons for doing so were complete, utter bullshit?

Go back to the 2nd 'graf: Remember that the socialist (pro-muslim) government stated the reasons they were demanding the vids be destroyed (i.e. the *nominal* or cover reasons) were 1) to prevent ISIS from using 'em for propaganda; and 2) to spare victims' families?

Both those are plausible, eh? But why would surveillance videos for the 24 hours *before* the attack have any bearing on those two stated reasons?

Have a *great* day, as a free person willing to defend freedom.---1. Obviously not a coincidence. Here's how it worked: Within hours after the attack the Nice police sent an initial report to the central security office of the Hollande government detailing what they knew, including what the city's surveillance cameras showed. So the central government knew what cameras should be erased. Having a "mole" in your opponent's intel service lets you know exactly what they know, usually before anyone else in the country knows it. (Care to guess how many pro-Soviet moles are in our CIA?)

There's a basic observation that when a tactic has the effect you want, you keep using it until your opponent develops a successful counter to it.

Black demonstrators around the country are demanding that police be defunded. But in several cities they're pushing a less-extreme intermediate goal: to pressure Democrat mayors and council members to cut police budgets by ten percent and put that money into..."community mumble mumble." Chances are good that craven pols wanting black votes will agree that diverting a mere ten percent of police funding won't hurt policing by a detectable amount.

And if crime does go up they'll just claim it was due to some other cause, like global warming. So easy to fool the rubes, eh?

And thus the precedent is set. And just like Democrats taking money from national defense to pay for giving more free shit to their voters, that won't end at ten percent. Hell, some countries make cops buy their own guns, so why not do that here? Or, experts say that in urban areas cops are more effective when they patrol on foot instead of in cars, so why not cut the number of patrol cars by, say, a third? See how it works?

"Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land?" Lynch: Uh, depends.

Loretta Lynch--like all Dem politicians--is quite cunning: She quickly recognized that because she had the cover of the Democrat media and her corrupt boss, when a congressional committee asked her to testify recently she could brazenly refuse to answer questions as basic as "Is the Constitution the supreme law of the U.S.?" with impunity.

It has to be so hard on your poor emperor: How many people did he have to interview for the post of Attorney-general before he found someone willing to trash the law and the Constitution in order to support him and his thoroughly lawless party?

Did the Founders mean for the prez to obey laws passed by congress?

"Congress makes things called 'laws,' and ordinary people must obey them. But as everyone knows, the president is one of the 3 co-equal branches of govt, and thus is not subordinate to congress. So obviously the laws congress makes don't apply to me or my federal workers.

"Since the Secretary of Skate is part of the executive branch--my administration--it follows that the laws passed by the legislature don't apply to the Secretary any more than they do to the president.

This is such a fundamental principle of the constitution that I'm sure my good friends on the Supreme Court will make a formal finding very soon now.

So don't get all wee-wee'd up over any alleged failure of the former Secretary of Skate--who will also be your next president--to obey laws, since they clearly don't apply to her, any more than they apply to me. They can't. It says that right in the Constitution.

First day of the Dim convention, and what was missing?

On the first day of the Democratic national convention, 61 speakers took the podium. Not one mentioned ISIS. Why not? Because as far as they're concerned, not only is Islamic terrorism not a problem, it's actually rude to Muslims to mention it.

One other thing: On Monday there wasn't a single American flag visible, either on the stage or in the entire hall. Why? Because as Moochelle said, "it's just a piece of cloth." Besides, a huge chunk of Democrat voters aren't U.S. citizens quite yet (not until 100 days after Hillary and company take office, when her v.p. pick has promised she will give them amnesty), so they're likely to be offended by our nation's flag.

As Hillary said: "Patriotism. Who needs it?"

Oh wait, did I mis-quote her? Sorry, it wasn't intentional, just "careless." I thought I heard her say that. So by her standards--and those of our thoroughly stupid or corrupt FBI director, and every Democrat--there's no problem, since there was no "intent."

Thursday, July 21

After Brexit, IMF cuts their estimated growth for world's economy--by how much??

The elites warned you that if the stupid Brits voted
to leave the faabulous EU it would devastate the economy of the *whole
world*! But you didn't listen! And now look what's happened:

The International Monetary Fund has reduced its forecast for global
economic growth due to the UK's vote to leave the EU.

Before the vote the IMF forecast the world's economy would grow 3.2 percent this year and 3.5 percent
in 2017. But because of that awful, awful Brexit vote, the IMF has now cut those estimates by...a terrifying 0.1 percentage point for each year.

"See, we elites warned you that if the Brits voted
to leave the EU it would kill the economy of the *whole
world*! But you didn't listen! See what happens when you don't listen to us?"

Wait, dude: Before the vote the IMF was predicting 3.2% growth and now they're guessing 3.1? A tenth of a percent upsets you?

Hillary story #845,095

Hillary Clinton recently remarked that watching the Republican Convention was like watching "The Wizard of Oz." This prompted a commenter on another site to write the following:

I used to do consulting work at a
nuke power plant in New York when she was senator. She hated nuclear power
and she would delight in telling the workers that she was going to close
the plant and put them out of work. She visited often and every
time she did the employees would whistle the tune "Ding-dong the witch is dead" from the movie.

No idea whether it's true but it's funny.

Of course if anyone did that in today's political climate Democrats would have a heart attack, claiming the eeevil whistlers were wishing death on their party's nominee.

Which is surely way worse than calling for cops to be murdered, as the Left has been doing for months now.

Reporters discover secret annex of Iran treaty; State Dept says *not* secret, just not revealed to the American public

One of the things the Obama regime touts as an example of their great negotiating skill is the nuclear treaty-but-not-really-a-treaty with the mullahs of Iran. It was so faabulous that they had to declare that even though it was to be a binding agreement between the U.S. and Iran, they weren't calling it a "treaty."

They couldn't call it a treaty because if it was, they'd have to get a 2/3 vote of the senate before it would be binding. That's called "ratification," and until Obama this was the way all treaties were handled. It was a check against a naive or stupid president making dumb treaties, for whatever reason.

Team Obama knew the agreement with Iran was so one-sided against the U.S. that they'd never get a 2/3 vote to ratify.

Solution? Just don't call it a "treaty."

Neat, huh. See how that works?

Now: Before this non-treaty was finalized, many of the provisions of the thing were kept secret even from members of congress--because the regime knew that if the provisions were revealed before the deal was done, the public would be so furious that they'd never get even the simple majority vote that they finagled to pass the thing. But after they got the bare-majority approval they wanted--obviously way easier than the two-thirds vote needed to ratify a treaty--they promised the public that all the terms of this crap agreement had been disclosed.

I know you'll all be totally shocked to learn that Obama and Kerry and the whole crew of top Democrats...lied to you about this super-wonderful non-treaty.

It's now been discovered that a major annex to the non-treaty treaty hadn't been revealed to the public. This prompted a reporter to ask a State Department spokesman how the administration could have said all the provisions had been made public when in fact they hadn't.

Watch the following video. Watch as the spokesman tapdances and dodges. "Oh no, it's not at all secret," he says, "because the people negotiating it knew about it.

When you watch this you get a feeling you've seen this performance before. Finally it hits: It's the same performance done by Hillary--who when asked "Did you wipe your private email server?" replied:

You mean like, with a cloth?

And yet a majority of voters are about to elect this creature president.

Attacker stabs French mother and her 3 daughters; authorities mystified as to possible motive

Both families were vacationing in the French Alps and were in
neighboring suites. The mother had helped the man the previous day when he became ill.

The next day the girls--8, 12 and 14 years old--were having breakfast on their porch when
the attacker came over, stabbed all 3, then went inside and stabbed
their mother. The youngest girl suffered a punctured lung and is reported to be in critical condition.

No French official would speculate as to the reason for the attack,
but all of them assured reporters that whatever the reason, "it had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

Officials also heatedly denied that the man attacked the girls because they were "scantily clad." However, a rogue, right-wing, anti-government TV network (TF1) reported that this was indeed the motive, as all 3 girls were wearing...shorts.

Gee, hard to imagine anyone getting upset about that, right? I mean, have you ever heard of anyone getting so offended by *shorts* on girls that they stab them? Anyone?

You too can predict the future

Predicting the future is actually pretty easy. If you know a lot about a politician's politics you can pretty easily predict how they'll respond to a given event.

Many members of
Blackliesmatter are peaceful, but many others have called for killing
cops. Accordingly, someone started one of those White House petitions
to have the Pentagon declare BLM a terrorist organization.

The petition stated“Terrorism is defined as ‘the use of violence and intimidation in
pursuit of political aims.’ This definition is the same definition used
to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations.” It also stated that the group
“earned this title due to its actions in Ferguson, Baltimore, and even
at a Bernie Sanders rally, as well as all over the United States and
Canada.”The petition garnered 141,444 signatures, prompting the White House to issue a response.

Ok, prediction time: How do you think the emperor would respond to that petition?

Axe attack in Germany, two with life-threatening injuries. Gov't has no idea of the motive.

You may have heard that a 17-year-old immigrant went on an ax-and-knife rampage on a train in southern
Germany, wounding five people (two have life-threatening injuries).

German officials were very disingenuous in describing the attack. The interior minister said witnesses reported the attacker yelled out
"an exclamation" as he was striking his defenseless victims with his
axe.

Do you find it even remotely plausible that the witnesses said "he yelled an exclamation as he attacked"? I don't either.

Fortunately a slew of news agencies were able to interview witnesses independently, and what the witnesses actually reported was that the guy was yelling
"Allahu akhbar." Which puts things in rather a different light, eh?

The German interior minister knew what the attacker yelled, of course, but he didn't want ordinary German citizens to know. Because the German government--like the emperor's regime--is totally committed to letting an unlimited number of so-called "refugees" into the country without any background check.

Now a few enterprising reporters have learned more: In a video posted by the Islamic State that purports to show the
attacker, the young man calls on others to “kill these infidels in the
countries that you live in.” “You can see I have lived in your own home and have planned to behead
you in your own territory,” the young man says in Pashto while
brandishing a knife.

The interior minister’s office told the dpa news agency that investigators had determined that the video was authentic. If you live in the U.S. you won't read this in the Democrat media, nor will you see the video. You might well ask why not. You won't get an answer but it'll be interesting.

The interior minister also took care to note that the attacker appeared to be a calm person and "not overtly religious." Wow, that's a relief. Cuz otherwise the ordinary shmuck might well think the attack had some vague, tenuous connection with Islam--which many liberals and Democrats still loyally call the religion of peace.

Looks like German elites still aren't serious on solving the problem of self-professed, unvetted "refugees" fucking up their country--and gravely injuring ordinary German civilians.

Tuesday, July 19

Germany tries to deport a handful of immigrants--they refuse to leave. Now what?

GERMAN officials are reporting a "massive failure in
the rule of law" as tens of thousands of immigrants due for deportation defy the government and remain in
the country.

A secret report by interior
ministers of all of Germany's 16 states says tens of thousands of
migrants scheduled to be flown to their homelands in the past few months
are still in the country being supported by German taxpayers.

One big cause of this is that migrants facing deportation lie about who they are and where they're from. And 70 percent of men under 40 are claiming they're suddenly too sick to fly.

And hundreds of liberal German doctors are refusing to sign certificates
stating that those intended for expulsion are fit to fly. Which has utterly predictable results: In one recent incident the state of Saxony chartered an aircraft to fly 49 Tunisians back home. Only 13 boarded: the identity of the others could
either not be proved or else they had gone into hiding among the migrant
community.Other tricks include deportees hiding their children with friends or
relatives knowing officials will not send them home without them.

In
one recent case the government chartered a jet to fly natives of Guinea
home on a jet with a crew of 14, 13 accompanying police officers and a
traveling doctor. Only 3 of the scheduled men showed up.

A rational person looks at this situation and thinks, "What the hell did the German elites think would happen? When the government demands that an unlimited number of anti-western people--who think democracy is evil and women are chattel--be allowed to enter the country, can anyone be surprised that they don't obey when the host country tries to deport some of 'em?

Kind of like the situation here in the emperor's empire, where less than five percent of illegal immigrants even bother to show up for their scheduled hearing. Too inconvenient, maybe? Yeah. Kind of like obeying any law.

Or like the president deciding which laws he'll choose to enforce and which he'll ignore.

Neat, huh? Government is SO much more efficient when one person makes every decision. No messy debate, no embarrassing publicity. Much better, eh citizen?

Former head of Fannie Mae knocked down $100 MILLION while with that agency--and more on retiring.

You've probably never heard of James Johnson. He was a major figure in the Democrat party, and CEO of one of the tens of thousands of alphabet agencies tied to the federal government: the Federal National Mortgage Association, usually shortened to "Fannie Mae."

More staggering yet, while Johnson was employed at Fannie Mae he received a staggering $100 MILLION in salary and mysteriously-contrived bonuses. That isn't a type either: this asshole actually bagged $100 million dollars.

For Democrats, liberals and "progressives" who probably believe this is all right-wing fiction, do ya know who Bill Moyers is? PBS fixture, 100 percent liberal. This info is from his website.

But hey, don't be a bit concerned, citizen: You've probably heard the Left bitching about obscene CEO salaries many times, but they don't mean CEO's of quasi-government agencies. After all, you never heard a thing about this before now, right? Meaning the Democrat Media didn't touch it.

The only reason it's come out now is a couple of people wrote a well-researched book called "Reckless Endangerment." And besides, it's only money. And under the brilliant leadership of your emperor, the federal government's deficit for this year is down to a measly $600 Billion so what's another million or so stolen per year, eh?

Hey, the country's in the very best possible hands. Well, if you're trying to destroy the Constitution, the rule of law and the way of life we grew up under. But don't worry, citizen: You'll still have cable TV. And soup. And powdered milk and government cheese. What's not to like?

But do, do continue to vote Democrat, citizen. Because numbers don't mean anything. They're just an attempt by Rethuglicans to scare you.

Lessons the Democrats learned from the deadly truck attack in France

A message from the Democratic Party:

Last week 84 people in Nice, France, were tragically killed by a truck. Early reports speculated that the driver may have been born in another country, but the birthplace of the driver, his motives and his religion don't matter.

Trucks are responsible for over 12,000 deaths per year in the U.S. And yet anyone can buy or rent a truck with absolutely no background check. This is outrageous. It's also outrageous that people can actually sell trucks privately--again, with no background check.

We've known about this problem--and warned about it--for years. But each time a Democrat in congress introduces a bill to close these loopholes, the Republicans in congress--on the orders of the powerful National Truck-makers' Lobby--have killed the bill without even letting it have a floor vote.

Thus we hope you'll agree that if we want to prevent a tragedy such as the one in Nice from killing innocent American children--like yours--we need to ban trucks.

Trucks are deadly weapons. The Republicans say people should have the right to buy or rent any vehicle, but this is obviously absurd. No one needs to own a truck. We need to ban these terrible killing devices in order to protect our innocent children. So please, won't you send Hillary $25, $50 or whatever you can afford? We hope to raise $500,000 to publicize the carnage caused by these awful devices every year.

Monday, July 18

"Law of Totally Unpredictable Consequences," part gazillion

"Renewable energy" is, like, so cool, y'know? An' we reeeally need to stop producing oil and gas and coal and those other icky things cuz, like, they all make CO2. Which is, like, killing our planet with global warming. [Hears murmurs of disagreement] Oh no, wait, sorry! Global climate change. Wow, you use one script for years and then they change it!

"Anyway, we need to stop all those other energy thingies and go completely to renewables. That is just so cool!"

You've all heard this kind of earnest touchy-feely talk from libs and Democrats and damn near every student. And it's wonderful, really.

Well, until you ask 'em a question or two. Because when moonbat liberals talk about "renewable energy" they don't mean hydro--which is indeed totally renewable and non-polluting, but which your so-called betters in government and the Left have barred from expanding.

And they don't mean wood--which is indeed totally renewable, but which emits the dreaded CO2.

So for now that leaves solar and wind. Which leads to the first question: Since both are intermittent, how do you store energy for times when it's night and there's no wind?

Be prepared for blank stares.

In fact, don't bother asking. Most of 'em have never considered that problem and will just be upset.

But of course that hasn't kept libs and "watermelons" from ramming renewables down our throats. Fried and bashed songbirds and eagles are no problem for zealous idealists.

Unfortunately, ideas have consequences. And in Australia they're finding out: Jumping on the "renewables" bandwagon, a few years ago liberal pols in the Oz government ordered dozens of coal and gas plants shut down, confident that renewables would take over.

Unfortunately the dumb pols forgot to consult that harsh mistress, reality--who can get pretty cross when that happens. They ran short of electricity, which left utilities in a bind: Do we simply turn off the juice to thousands of our customers on a rotating basis (called "the Venezuela solution") or do we pay ten times the usual rate for electricity to snag the last kilowatt to ensure our customers don't go dark in the middle of winter?

Of course if you don't know what a "MWh" is, you don't know how big a hit it is to have to pay $14,000 for one, eh? But knowing how supply and demand work you can probably guess that it's more than the usual rate, right? So maybe, what, ten times more?

Uh, no. The usual cost of wholesale electricity is around $100 per MWh. So utilities that were forced to scramble for supply to keep their customers from freezing had to pay 140 times the usual rate.

Moonbat: "Eh, they'll probably just absorb that extra cost. Because all companies--including public utilities--want to be socially responsible!"

But don't worry, citizen--even though your emperor had his EPA pass a rule that forced generating companies to shut down 187 coal-fired powerplants, we can't possibly have a shortage of electricity here. Because the laws of supply and demand don't apply here, see? Besides, we've got way more electrical capacity than we need. [That's sarcasm, btw]

And anyway, before enlightened Democrats elected the emperor the first time, he promised that "under my plan the cost of electricity will necessarily skyrocket," so when the cost of electricity does that--because of his EPA order that killed 187 coal-fired plants--he'll just be honoring his solemn promise. Who could possibly be upset about that?

Why did so many elites--including the emperor--loudly oppose the idea of the UK leaving the EU?

If you don't follow politics closely you might not have noticed that your emperor and senior Democrat congresswhores [has nothing to do with either sex or gender] were highly upset about the Brits voting to leave the EU.

A great question to ask is, why was that?

A few weeks before the vote Obama actually threatened the Brits, saying that if they voted to leave the EU his administration would kick the UK to the back of the line when it came to negotiating trade deals.

How crappy is that? Imagine the howls of *outrage* from the Democrat media if the prime minister of the UK had threatened retaliation if your emperor pushed through the Trans-Pacific trade agreement?

Imagine how a majority of Americans would react if Mexico's president threatened to cut off trade with the U.S. if congress (spit!) ever grew a pair and decided to build a wall on the southern border.

But then Barry seems to be totally tone-deaf when it comes to dealing with basically everyone--foreign or domestic--other than his lackeys and toadies in the press.

By contrast, it's easy to understand why EU politicians--both national leaders and the unelected (appointed) members of the infamous, dictatorial "EU parliament" are upset: EU "representatives" fear that if other nations follow the U.K, their jobs might evaporate. Heads of state see the vote to leave as reducing the EU's economic and political power (such as it may be). But why should the emperor of the United States care whether Britain voted one way or the other?

I think there are a couple of plausible reasons--and I also think it will be *extremely* informative to investigate those reasons: First, the vote to leave the EU was widely seen as a rejection by ordinary UK citizens of the forced importation of muslim immigrants into the UK by their government. The immigrants end up in taxpayer-funded housing, and on welfare. Many have multiple wives and dozens of kids. Meanwhile the average UK working stiff struggles to pay his electric bill.

The European parliament constantly bitched at member nations to get 'em to "take their fair share" of immigrants, despite the huge problems those so-called refugees were clearly causing. A majority of Britain's voters got fed up with the EU forcing the UK--with David Cameron's approval--to accept anti-western, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, misogynistic muslims into the nation--and then being forced to give them welfare and free housing. And finally the people spoke, through their votes.

Moreover, most analysts agreed that if Britain voted to leave the EU, other EU member states were likely to follow rather than continuing to be forced to admit even more unskilled, violent, misogynistic, anti-western immigrants. And sure enough, after the vote, France, Italy and the Netherlands are said to be considering asking their people whether they want to join the UK in leaving the EU.

Another reason why Barry threatened UK voters has to do with U.S. domestic politics: As just noted, the UK vote to leave represents a victory for "ordinary" citizens fed up with the EU--essentially an unaccountable, unelected super-government--forcing them to accept hundreds of thousands of anti-western, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, misogynistic so-called "refugees" into the country. But of course that's exactly the policy Barry's been forcing on the U.S. for years.

Thus the British vote against continuing to tolerate that is obviously a rejection of one of the emperor's key policies. And your narcissistic emperor is notoriously thin-skinned when anyone objects to one of his faaabulous policies.

I suspect he's also a bit concerned that this sentiment might spread to even more U.S. voters than it already has. (And most of those voters who don't have an opinion don't know that the emperor has been flying tens of thousands of so-called "refugees" per year into the U.S.)

If this resistance does spread you can be sure the mainstream media will continue to thoroughly demonize anyone brazen enough to oppose the emperor's policy of forcing us to accept immigrants who are against democracy and western ideas. The emperor and his media arm will call such people racists and islamophobic, and it'll get worse from there.

BLM proposes disbanding police forces--and they seem to be serious

There's a basic observation that when a tactic works, you keep using it. People don't stop using a successful tactic until the other side develops a successful counter to it.

Many black demonstrators around the country are demanding that police be defunded and disbanded. But in several cities they're pushing for an intermediate step: just cut police budgets by ten percent and put that money into...community services or review boards or children's programs or mumble mumble. And given the current climate of attacks on cops, chances are good that craven city politicians wanting to win black votes will agree that diverting a mere ten percent of police funding won't hurt policing by a detectable amount.

With the mis-labeling characteristic of leftists they call this "rebalancing," cuz everyone knows "balance" is good. If they succeed in this, the precedent will be set. And just like Democrat congresswhores diverting money from national defense to fund free shit for voters, once the principle is established it's highly unlikely to end at ten percent.

Hell, some countries make cops buy their own guns, so why not do that here? Or, experts say cops are more effective on foot that in cars, so why not cut the number of patrol cars by, say, a third? See how it works?

Now, I'll readily admit that most cops are on much higher alert when stopping black males than other groups. Given the percentages of black males shooting cops this strikes me as entirely appropriate. Are police sometimes to quick to use force--including shooting? Clearly.

And what about disbanding public policing altogether? Y'know, that seems like an idea worth trying--in Demcrat-run cities and states first, of course. It would be great if 3 or 4 of the most solidly-Democrat-controlled cities or states would find out how well disbanding their police forces works. Then the entire nation--and all voters--would get to see whether this idea is any good.

In fact, seems to me this would be a great idea with all the really faaabulous proposals from the Left--test 'em in Democrat-run cities first and see how well--or poorly--they work. That would save the rest of us so much misery!

Lynch: Water may or may not be wet; it's whatever the emperor and I say it is on any given day

The emperor's hand-picked Attorney-general, Loretta Lynch, was summoned to capitol hill and questioned about whether laws apply to Democrat members of the emperor's administration.

Ms. Lynch responded that perjury could be legal, revealing classified information could be legal, everything prohibited by law is up for grabs, depending on context. She added that she couldn't be sure water was wet or fire was hot.

Context, baby.

Ms. Lynch--like all Dems--is quite cunning. She recognized that given the cover of the Democrat media and her corrupt boss, when a congressional committee asked her to testify as to the meaning of various laws she could brazenly refuse to answer questions as basic as "Is the Constitution the supreme law of the U.S.?" with impunity.

It has to be so hard to be the emperor: How many people did he have to interview for Attorney-general before he found someone willing to trash the law and the Constitution in order to support him and his thoroughly lawless party?

Did the folks who wrote the Constitution intend that the president had to obey laws passed by congress?

(Washington D.C.)--The White House released the following statement at noon today:

"Congress makes things called 'laws,' and ordinary people must obey them. But as everyone knows, the president is one of the 3 co-equal branches of govt. This means the president is not subordinate to congress. So clearly the men, women, gay and transgender persons who wrote the constitution didn't intend that laws made by congress would apply to me or anyone in the executive branch--which of course includes all federal agencies other than congress and the judiciary.

"Since the Secretary of Skate is part of the executive branch--my administration--it follows that the laws passed by the legislature don't apply to the Secretary any more than they do to the president.

"This is such a fundamental principle of the constitution that I'm sure my good friends on the Supreme Court will formally confirm this very soon now.

"So don't get all weeweed up over any alleged failure of the former Secretary of Skate--and next president--to obey some trivial laws about maintaining public records of government business, or of mishandling classified material, since they clearly don't apply to her, any more than they apply to me. They can't. It's right there in the consitution.

Obama: "It is very hard to determine the motivations of this shooter."

Attorney-general Loretta Lynch: "This was not a hate crime, and we will not investigate it to see if it was a hate crime. Nothing to see here, and we hope this doesn't discourage all
the peaceful protestors from going out and shouting, "Fuck the police" and throwing iron bars and rocks at them. After all, it's not illegal to throw iron bars and rocks--both are just examples of free speech, just like burning that silly American flag you crackers seem to love so much.

Ninety-five percent of the leadership of black organizations: "It ain't even possible for a black to commit a hate-crime against a cracka'. Only works the other way round! It's like we say, only black lives matter--no one else. I can't even buh-lieve you in my face about this sheeit."

Heather MacDonald on the real results of affirmative action in university admissions

I really, really do understand why Dems and liberals were so eager to drink the Kool-aid of affirmative action. It seemed like such a compelling solution to the under-representation of blacks in most academic fields. So to Dems, all that was needed to fix the problem was to admit bright black people to top universities.

Voila, problem solved.

But as noted by
Heather Mac Donald, using significantly lower standards for
favoured groups often leaves the supposed beneficiaries of this system in
a tough situation they’re ill-equipped to handle.

Now, I'm a firm believer that brilliance is anywhere. I suspect Condi Rice could go toe-to-toe with anyone on the planet in terms of IQ. But when university admissions systems give what amounts to 15+ fictitious IQ points to black
university applicants, based solely on their race, other students may tend to be skeptical of the beneficiaries. Moreover,many of the students who get an AA admission will tend to be toward the
bottom of their class academically.

Many of the recipients of such
favouritism then either drop out or change majors to less demanding
subjects – often Angry Studies -- and may still find themselves
struggling, frustrated and resentful. It’s like expecting ‘C’ high
school grads to master ‘A’-level college work--and then claiming to be
utterly mystified when the inevitable happens.

This seems to be example number 395,985,243 of the "law of unintended consequences."

Communism is alive and well here

After the empire known as the USSR largely disbanded around 1990 virtually everyone in the U.S. stopped regarding communism as a threat. In fact, in today's "enlightened" America anyone who casts communism in even mildly derisive terms is considered unenlightened. Uncool.

With this background, take a look at this link. It's to a website called "It's Going Down." If you're not sure what the authors mean by "going down," here's a quote:

"A special shout out to the comrades in Oakland last night who showed us
yet again the significance (both materially and polemically) of
blocking the networked physical infrastructure of this world we wish to
destroy."

a counter-intel provocation by right-wingers trying to peel support away from the Left;

a couple of college kids spoofing a conservative acquaintance;

a Trump supporter trying to scare people away from voting Democrat;

a couple of Sanders supporters who are still bitter about being steamrolled by Clinton;

Vox or Slate or HuffPo trying to see if they can bait any conservative bloggers into thinking the site and organization are legit.

Those all sound really plausible, eh? Or it could be real. But that can't be possible--because what kind of communist or enemy of America would say, in plain text, right out in the open, that they wanted to overthrow things?

Hmm...let's see: Your emperor said he was gonna "fundamentally transform America." And I'll be darned if that's not exactly what he did. And I hope all the brain-dead Dems who voted for him--twice--are very happy about how things have turned out.

BTW, while lots of "Black Lives Matter" supporters are sincere and peaceful, the leadership is in complete solidarity with communism and the anarchists. Just so ya know.

Is the emperor a socialist? Why, that's awful! He just wants govt to *control* everything, not own it

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He's certainly an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that doesn't mean he wants government ownership of the means of production (a common definition of socialism).

[Instead] What President Obama has been pushing for...is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership [technically] in private hands. That way politicians get to call the shots, but when their bright ideas lead to disaster they can blame [the private sector owners].

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until those children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates [fabulous] publicity for President Obama. But [when] this... causes insurance premiums to rise, [the president blames it] on the “greed” of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

CNN and AP both carry stories on the political and economic and human disaster in Venezuela

Because CNN never met a liberal or Democrat they didn't like, liberals and Democrats trust that mainstream cable-TV network. So if you know any liberals or Dems, you might point this story out to 'em:

As I've posted dozens of times, Venezuela was once a wealthy country. Highest per-capita income in all of Latin America. But when they voted for a socialist for president, everything quickly started to turned to shit. Now they can't afford to import food, let alone medicine or diapers.

Of course not one American in 100 knew anything about this, because your faaabulous mainstream media said very little about it. The media would much rather spend airtime or headlines telling you how wonderful Hillary and the emperor are, and how awful Trump is, and how all our problems are still due to George Bush.

To increase the impact of the story, CNN couches it as "children are dying," which hits most people even harder. And since it's CNN, libs and Dems will notice and believe it.

Now for the puzzle: Venezuela has been spiraling down for 15 years or so. In the last 5 that nation has lurched from crisis to more serious crisis. Why so little coverage in U.S. media?

I suspect it's due to the fact that the mainstream media loooves socialism. It's cool, it's trending with all the cool people who go to A-list parties, and college professors constantly praise it as very sophisticated, very European. So all these faabulous intellects have been studiously ignoring the very obvious disaster in Venezuela, because it shows the inevitable result of the system they've spent so many years praising--and trying to ram down our throats here.

The reporter noted people who had stood in line for 8 hours to buy toilet paper.

Keep in mind that 20 years ago the country suffering these things had the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America. Then ask yourself how things could become so disastrous, so deadly, so awful in such a relatively short time.

Ask your professors. Ask Democrat candidates for office if we need to enact more socialist policies.

It's also worth noting that the AP piece mentions "socialist" exactly once, and "socialism" not at all. So the average person reading the piece is extremely unlikely to make the connection.

Also, just because a story is on the AP's newsfeed doesn't mean any newspaper or network will pick it up. If you're curious, search the Net for: +"hannah dreier" +venezuela and see how many large papers ran the story.

But don't worry, comrade: As soon as Her Heinous takes office--so can't be hurt by her consistent praise of socialist policies--the U.S. will start shipping billions of dollars of...everything...to Venezuela. Most of this, of course, will be stolen by the socialist pols. What they don't consume will re-surface in stores, with the proceeds going to--you guessed it--the politicians who stole the stuff!

Then the former Secretary of Skate will give 'em billions of dollars in aid--because after all, that's what Americans do for suffering people when there's a natural disaster, right?

But if it's a disaster, and helping is good, why hasn't your emperor already dispatched dozens of Navy ships filled with medicine, medical supplies and food?

It's probably because he only knows about stuff if he reads it in the paper--just like he professed to know *nothing* about the IRS targeting conservative organizations until weeks after the scandal actually broke.

But don't worry, citizen: Nothing like this could ever happen here. Cuz we're immune to laws like "cause and effect," "supply and demand" and the one that says if you depend on government for everything you just became a slave.

Not one of you will be surprised to learn that the emperor ignored the
request. Obama has been fanning the flames of racial anger ever since he took office. A typical example is his infamous line of "If their side brings a knife, you bring a gun."

Imagine if the first black president had said "By electing a black president Americans have shown their willingness to ignore race when filling the top position in the nation. Let's all use this historic opportunity to show that racial animosity will have no part in the future of this nation."

But of course he didn't. To paraphrase one of his go-to lines, "It's not who he is." Instead he's chosen to stir up anger and resentment. And again, no one is even a bit surprised.

Tuesday, July 12

Remember Bill Clinton and his infamous answer (under oath) "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"? Every rational person who saw that video clip knew right away that the scum was lying to cover his ass. Not that this isn't a very natural reaction for a married president caught having oral sex with a 20-year-old intern in the oval office.

Anyway...anyone who's served in the military knows there are documents called "classified," and that you're prohibited from disclosing these to people without the proper security clearance. And if you do they can throw your ass in jail for a long time.

Now, in James Comey's testimony a few days ago it was revealed that Hillary allowed her attorneys to examine the contents of her private, non-government email server--the only email address she ever used to conduct official government business. From all reports the attorneys didn't have a security clearance. This seemed like yet another case of Hillary saying "I don't need to obey the rules that have been established for little people, because...I'm the fucking queen and I get to decide what laws and rules I need to obey.

So the House invited Loretta Lynch to explain whether it was indeed legal and proper for people without a security clearance to have access to classified material. Seems like a very open-and-shut proposition. But Lynch refused to give a straight answer.

Chaffetz: Does an individual need a security clearance to review or have access to classified material?

Lynch: Well, congressman, that would be dependent upon the
agency for whom they worked and the nature of the work that they did
with respect to…

Chaffetz: Can you give me an example where you don’t need a security clearance to view classified material?

Lynch: No, I believe as I was going to say, they would, but the type
of clearance varies with every agency and the agency would make that
decision and determination.

Chaffetz: Is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance?

Lynch: Congressman, it depends on the facts of every situation. You’d
have to determine how that sharing occurred. You’d have to determine
the means. You’d have to determine the reason, the intent, um, certainly
depending on how you view the statute it could go any number of ways.

Chaffetz: So you think there is a scenario in which you could share
classified information with somebody who doesn’t have the requisite
security clearance?

Lynch: No, I would not draw that conclusion. I would say that I’m not
able to answer it as a hypothetical but there are a number of factors
that would go into the decision and one could have any number of
results.

This exchange continued along these lines for several more minutes. After each question Lynch reverted to her scripted, lawyerly
non-answer, refusing to say if it is still a crime to disclose secret
information to a person without an appropriate security clearance.

I can understand her confusion: the law on handling classified material is very vague. Secret
documents are routinely stamped, "It is a felony imprisonable by up to
ten years to disclose this information to any unauthorized person--unless you're a Democrat official."

Emperor's hand-picked Secretary of Transportation sued for being a ghost employee for 4 years before being picked

One of the hallmarks of good management--and certainly good governance--is picking the most qualified people to fill positions. With that in mind, consider Obama's hand-picked Transportation Secretary, one Anthony Foxx.

Foxx went from city councilman in 2005 to become mayor of Charlotte, NC in November, 2009. Four years later the emperor chose Foxx to be Transportation Secretary. The U.S. senate unanimously voted to confirm him in June of 2013.

I'm sure the emperor chose Foxx because of all that experience as mayor of Charlotte, huh.

Turns out Foxx did have some vital experience--though possibly not in a positive sense: The same month Foxx took office as mayor, he also was named deputy general counsel at a company called DesignLine, holding that title until the day before he took office as transportation secretary on July 1, 2013.

By coincidence, DesignLine filed for bankruptcy in 2013. And last August the bankruptcy trustee sued Foxx, claiming he didn't actually do any work for the company, and thus should be forced to repay $421,000 in salary.

The lawsuit states that the company hired two outside law firms to help with legal matters, and that those firms were paid millions of dollars while Foxx, as deputy general counsel, spent little to no time at the company during the relevant time period. According to the suit there are also no records of Foxx discussing any corporate matters with the outside law firms or working with them in any way, despite his nominal title of "deputy general counsel."

Surely--surely--you'd think someone in his circle would have vetted this guy, eh? Wonder what made the emperor appoint such a minimally-qualified, unvetted, ghost employee to a cabinet post?

Oh, maybe I understand now.

Anthony Foxx, former mayor of Charlotte and the emperor's pick for Transportation Secretary

A bit more info: DesignLine was a fairly new company that supposedly built hybrid-electric buses. Their main customer was the Charlotte airport, and in 2007--two years after Foxx was elected to the city council--the city bought a bunch of the buses. They were scrapped in 2014 because of what were reported as "maintenance problems."

Gee, what would make a city take a flyer on millions of dollars worth of fancy, unproven electric buses? Guess the same thing that made the federal Department of Energy give a half-Billion dollar loan (never repaid) to Solyndra, which immediately went bankrupt after paying handsome bonuses to execs.

Two-thirds of all the state health-insurance "co-ops" (vendors) set up under Obamacare have now closed

Two more health-care "co-ops"--health insurance vendors organized by a number of states under the provisions of the laughably-misnamed "Affordable Care Act" (ObamaCare)--announced they were closing their doors in the past week. And regulators in Illinois put that state's system under receivership.

Only a third of ObamaCare co-ops are still in operation, and many of those have been forced to raise their premiums by as much as 60 percent [!!] this year, even after getting tens of millions of dollars from the government (i.e. taxpayers).

"But...but...but...it was a really *really* well-intended and wonderfully executed idea. If only those eevil rethuglicans hadn't sabotaged it by not appropriating any funding for it!!"

Uh, no, but nice try Democrats. This disaster has consumed billions of tax dollars, to very little good effect. Even low-income people whose premiums are paid entirely by taxpayers have policies with deductibles in the range of $10,000. And of course if they have a health problem they can't pay such a high amount, which means taxpayers pay again.

"We dems can be particularly proud that our faaabulous senate leader, Harry Reid, didn't let those stupid rethuglicans make even a single amendment to our bill. In fact Harry didn't even allow a single GOP amendment to get a floor vote! So there, stupid rethuglicans!"

Man, you got us there, sparky. You Democrats own this disaster--100 percent. Your brilliance shines through yet again. But hey, at least the illegals are able to get free (i.e. taxpayer-paid) health insurance. So that's something, eh?

And ya know, if you'd just allowed a handful of amendments from the stupid republicans get a floor vote, maybe this disaster could have been avoided. But NO, ya just couldn't bring yourselves to do it. The only person who could have pressured Democrat senate majority leader Harry Reid to allow GOP amendments to at least get a floor vote--that would be the emperor--had no interest in allowing even the slightest alterations to his magnificent, perfect plan.

Any of y'all recognize the name "Jon Gruber"? He was the MIT economist who claims to have drafted a good chunk of the convoluted 1200-page bill that became ObamaCare. Gruber claims he was able to fastball this disaster by the public because Americans were too stupid to understand the numbers.

You can't believe that, of course--even though he's on video saying it, and more than once. But what difference does it make now, eh citizens? We're all in this together, right? Why quibble about who drafted this or that provision, or who ruled that this or that amendment shouldn't get a floor vote? After all, we had the best of intentions! And if you enemies in the other party saw that something was fundamentally wrong with our magnificent plan, or that the numbers might be just a bit off, it was your duty to speak up. We were trying to work with you, but you refused to help us.

Fortunately, now we don't need you, because our candidate--who everyone agrees is the world's smartest woman--will take over for our beloved emperor in November. She'll order a few small changes--barely a nip and a tuck--and everything will be fine. After all, we all saw how brilliantly she performed as Secretary of State, right?

Now let's see if we can import another 10,000 Syrian "refugees" by the end of the year. Cuz diversity is our strength.

A black professor at California State University, Los Angeles, who has worked as an attorney for Black Lives Matter, said in an interview this weekend that she is “not concerned about blue lives” and wants the police to be abolished.

Nana Gyamfi said her ultimate goal is a world without police officers. "I’m not concerned about blue lives, I’m concerned about black lives,” she said. “In fact, I want the police to be abolished. I think we should be pushing the police out of our community. I think that we should be defunding the police. I think that we should be demilitarizing the police and finally dismantling the police.”

When asked how she proposed to maintain order without police she said “By doing what we did before we had the influx of crack cocaine and other ills that caused us to call the police in. There was a time when black people didn’t call police into the community--we had our own means in the community.”

Gyamfi isn’t the first activist to call for defunding the police. A group called the Black Youth Project has demanded that all police departments be de-funded. “We demand all local, state and federal budgets to defund the police and invest those dollars and resources in Black futures,” the group’s website states.

Consider: This creature is a professor. Presumably she communicates this shit to her students.

Baltimore got to conduct a very-small-scale experiment with not having police in the hood. The result was a record number of murders of blacks, by other blacks. But that was probably an anomaly; a coincidence. So by all means let's acquiesce to Gyamfi's demand and get some more data on this. I suggest removing cops from her campus and her neighborhood for, oh, a year or two, and collect data on the results. Who knows? She may be right.

Monday, July 11

Emperor on Dallas shooting: "We have no idea what his motive was."

It seems clear that the Dallas shooter was nuts. But with that said, it's also been established that in his lengthy (about 2 hours) conversations with a police negotiator he said he wanted to kill police, "especially white officers." So even though crazy, that was his motive.

Interesting, then, that with all the resources at the emperor's beck and call--all the wire-service feeds and TV coverage--the emperor would later say "We have no idea what his motive was."

Ya gotta wonder: If the emperor knew that for the last seven years he'd been fanning the flames of black anger toward whites, and then this happened, would he make every effort to deny the guy's own stated motive, since that might make people ask questions about how much effect the emperor's statements had on the guy's mental state.

Nah, he probably just thinks the killer's stated reason for why he did it was just an effort to mislead investigators or something.

The country and system you grew up under is hanging by a thread

Some serious questions for my students:

Have you enjoyed your lives so far? If you eventually have kids, would you like them to grow up under the same system you've enjoyed, or would you rather the system you grew up under be junked in favor of socialism and sharia law?

You probably think those are absurd questions, that there's no way Americans would junk our way of life for the deadly curse of socialism and sharia.

Think again: In a poll, a majority of eastern American college students said they thought socialism was better than capitalism. From our conversations I'm convinced y'all think that's ridiculous, but I'm telling you what they think.

And of course the angry adherents of Black Lives Matter loudly claim they want to destroy the existing structure of the U.S. and substitute free college, a guaranteed income, reparations and the like. Which they plan to get by taxing the rich.

Either of these things would result in the destruction of America as you've known it.

If that's okay with you, you can stop reading. If it's not, read on.

One huge problem is that our politicians aren't moral or ethical enough to stop either of these trends. The guys who wrote the Constitution worried that a too-powerful government would be a huge danger, so they carefully developed a "system of checks and balances" that they thought would be enough to keep government under control. (If you can't explain what "checks and balances" means, stop reading.)

But the key to this carefully-devised plan working was that members of congress would be both honest and devoted to obeying the Constitution. They wouldn't go into politics as a lifetime career but would literally "serve" for a few years and then go back to being ordinary citizens.

The Founders never anticipated that being in congress would become a huge power-trip, such that people would spend tens of millions of dollars to win a seat. They never anticipated that a candidate for president would spend two BILLION dollars to win that office.

Holding national office has become like winning the lottery. Studies show that the average net worth of the...congresspeople...increases by over half a million dollars for each year they stay in office--on a salary of $174,000 per year. Which gives 'em a huge incentive to win re-election. Which in turn means virtually all of 'em will forsake every principle of long-term good of the country--including defending the Constitution that has been the envy of the world--if they think that will win more votes than it costs 'em.

And what every single pol has discovered is that you can get elected by promising people "free" stuff.

Not surprisingly, a HUGE number of people have decided they'd rather not work and still get, say, $1,500 a month from the government--which is to say, from your parents--than to have to get up and work 40 hours a week at a serious job.

The federal government has made this problem far, far worse by creating a system of regulations that make it more attractive for companies to export manufacturing overseas, thus drastically cutting the number of high-paying, skilled jobs for Americans. Finally, the Democrat party has made it their goal to import millions of immigrants to the U.S., further increasing competition for jobs.

And we haven't even gotten to the shredding of the Constitution yet. Much of that is due to a syndrome called "virtue-signalling," in which Elites dictate (and implement) policies that most rational Americans recognize as stupid or even suicidal. The Elites don't care, because all their friends and fellow Elites think these policies are faaabulous, and beloved by all virtuous people.

It helps immensely that the same Elites who rammed through these policies aren't adversely affected by them (as far as they can tell, anyway). Thus it makes no difference to a network president if a factory closes and a thousand people lose their jobs. After all, the government will provide.

So you're probably wondering what any of this has to do with you.

Simple: The fate of the country is up to you. Literally. So, like, no pressure or anything.

I'm really, really sorry it's come to this, but it is what it is. So if you want your (hypothetical) kids to grow up with anything like the relatively fabulous childhood you've had, it's up to you.

Now, I know this won't be easy. In fact there are 5 common reasons why people who would *like* to preserve the country do nothing:

1. The problems are too big--one person can't make a bit of difference;
2. Between working and raising my kids I just don't have time to spend taking on the Left.
3. Politics has always been like this--always corrupt--which shows it can't be changed.
4. Both parties are equally bad, so what's the point in voting for one over the other?
5. "I work in [government / a university / a public school system / a liberal company / the mainstream media] and if people ever discovered that I was defending the Constitution I'd lose all my friends at work."

About Me

Ex-AF pilot. While airliners are very safe, flying a single-pilot jet can be extremely demanding, especially in bad weather. It's a *huge* tribute to engineers that today's commercial jetliners are so amazingly safe!